Recent developments have put the so-called “alt-right” movement in the news. They highlight the need for clarity around use of the term and around some related terms, such as “white nationalism” and “white supremacism.”

Let’s tackle them.

The “alt-right” or “alternative right” is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order.

The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism.

Although many adherents backed President-elect Donald Trump in the recent election, Trump last week said he disavows and condemns the “alt-right.”

The movement criticizes “multiculturalism” and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.

Usage

“Alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lower case) may be used in quotes or modified as in the “self-described” or “so-called alt-right” in stories discussing what the movement says about itself.

Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In the past we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

Boilerplate

Again, whenever “alt-right” is used in a story, be sure to include a definition: “an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism,” or, more simply, “a white nationalist movement.”

Here is an example from the AP news report:

With an ideology that’s a mix of racism, white nationalism and old-fashioned populism, the “alt-right” has burst into the collective consciousness since members showed up at the Republican National Convention to celebrate Trump’s nomination last summer.

Be specific and call it straight

Finally, when writing on extreme groups, be precise and provide evidence to support the characterization.

We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.

The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.

The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.

I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.

I don't. The Alt-Right is explicitly interested in creating ethnic nation-states out of existing pluralistic ones. I doubt 30% of the populations of western countries want to go along with what that would imply and would instead be more pragmatic.

The mainstream also label civic nationalists as alt-right, if you take them into account then i reckon 30% is not far off. But the ethnic nationalists do not class civic nationalists as alt-right.

The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.

The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.

I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.

I don't. The Alt-Right is explicitly interested in creating ethnic nation-states out of existing pluralistic ones. I doubt 30% of the populations of western countries want to go along with what that would imply and would instead be more pragmatic.

The mainstream also label civic nationalists as alt-right, if you take them into account then i reckon 30% is not far off. But the ethnic nationalists do not class civic nationalists as alt-right.

Well, the mainstream (media) are not correctly identifying the alt-right, as outlined by AP (a standard maker in English language journalism) above. The truth is, journalists (and PR posters), while knowing fairly well what it means, are using the fuzziness of the way the term sounds in order to lump those they don't agree with who are not outside the Overton window in with those they don't agree with, but are outside the Overton window. It's effectively calling people Nazis, without having to use, or defend, Godwin's Law.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

It seems to me that it's difficult not to call it white nationalism in the American context, given the ethnic complexity of the white population there. Are there any kind of ideas about how ethnic nations would be carved out of America, given the historical mixing of different ethnicities? Would Italian and Irish Americans be allotted their own state? Is this discussed, in your experience? Genuinely interested, even if I'm also poking.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

It seems to me that it's difficult not to call it white nationalism in the American context, given the ethnic complexity of the white population there. Are there any kind of ideas about how ethnic nations would be carved out of America, given the historical mixing of different ethnicities? Would Italian and Irish Americans be allotted their own state? Is this discussed, in your experience? Genuinely interested, even if I'm also poking.

So what do you we do about America, give it back to the Indians and go back to our white homeland in Europe?

No. That 'circle is squared' by differentiating between 'pioneers' and 'immigrants'. Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon do this too. Completely different thing moving into land inhabited by hunter / gatherer / primitive farmers and building a modern industrial nation from scratch, from just migrating into an already developed nation.

Don't shoot me - that's the distinction made.

Besides, where is the white homeland in Europe now? Chedder Man was black you know. England was full of Africans in Roman times and is a nation of immigrants. So we are told.

The psychological pressure is enormous, when you have to criticize yourself, denounce your thinking—your own ethnic group. I still think about it every night, until the sun rises. I can’t sleep. The thoughts are with me all the time.

Imagine living in a state where you have to criticize yourself, denounce your thinking and your own ethnic group. That would certainly keep you up at night.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

Yet it was acceptable for you to emigrate to the UK.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

Quote:

The ThirdFor this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

Quote:

The ThirdFor this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

So anyway, going forward, we now all know roughly what the alt-right is - how they are defined from the outside and how they define themselves. It didn't take much, just a bit of conversation.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

Quote:

The ThirdFor this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

The commonwealth vs EU thing is interesting. I had a conversation with a young southern European lady the other day who was very angry that her right to live in the UK may be revoked after they leave the EU (she doesn't live there now). I pointed out that I was ethnically British (descended from at least one person who was forcibly removed from the UK, as well as more recent voluntary migrants), spoke the language fluently and shared in an almost identical culture, and have no right to simply live in the UK without a (very expensive) visa. She didn't seem to understand why her sense of entitlement was simply based on one set of arbitrary principles, she just kept telling me that I'm not European. Australia is playing an interesting role in this respect.

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

Quote:

The ThirdFor this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

The commonwealth vs EU thing is interesting. I had a conversation with a young southern European lady the other day who was very angry that her right to live in the UK may be revoked after they leave the EU (she doesn't live there now). I pointed out that I was ethnically British (descended from at least one person who was forcibly removed from the UK, as well as more recent voluntary migrants), spoke the language fluently and shared in an almost identical culture, and have no right to simply live in the UK without a (very expensive) visa. She didn't seem to understand why her sense of entitlement was simply based on one set of arbitrary principles, she just kept telling me that I'm not European. Australia is playing an interesting role in this respect.

It's a mess. Churchill would be rolling in his grave if he could see how the historical British populations have cut each other off from each other. Its probably a fiendish Franco German plot as united we are easily the most powerful group on the planet.

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.

Please do not believe for a second that he would shut down because some guy posting on the internet disagrees with him and says so.

Contrary to what he is posting, I do not spend my "virtual life" on here stalking him - We have very little exchanges and true, it never goes too well.

I find his patronising attitude more annoying that his alt right beliefs.